Three part series on global warming by Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker, about 50 pages overall, excellent reportage on current science and politics on this topic.

A snip from part one:
Global warming is routinely described as a matter of scientific debate—a theory whose validity has yet to be demonstrated. This characterization, or at least a variant of it, is offered most significantly by the Bush Administration, which maintains that there is still insufficient scientific understanding to justify mandatory action. The symposium’s opening session lasted for more than nine hours. During that time, many speakers stressed the uncertainties that remain about global warming and its effects—on the thermohaline circulation, on the distribution of vegetation, on the survival of cold-loving species, on the frequency of forest fires. But this sort of questioning, which is so basic to scientific discourse, never extended to the relationship between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. The study’s executive summary stated, unequivocally, that human beings had become the “dominant factor” influencing the climate. During an afternoon coffee break, I caught up with Corell. “Let’s say that there’s three hundred people in this room,” he told me. “I don’t think you’ll find five who would say that global warming is just a natural process.”
>>>>>>>

The entire 3-part series is online;
here's a link to part 3 which has links to the first two parts:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3

 

A couple of months ago I confined myself to a room for about a week and a half inflicted with chicken pox. What a nasty thing to have.

Anyway I was terribly bored and found lots of this kind of stuff on NPR, it was on almost every time time I turned it on. I had lots of time to watch. If you hear something enough times it becomes undisputed fact.
I'm always amazed that the focus is always how terrible and wreckless America is in regards to everything, and paints a dark, sinister picture of rampent uncontrolled abuse.
It would seem like we're still back in the 1920's.
Yes the United States is the worlds worst single polluter, but also among the highest GDP. That's never mentioned either.
I didn't find the fact anywhere in that article that the United States spends trillions annually for prevention and cleanup of all forms of pollution. Sadly it's so stereotypical for the media to rip the US as the bad guy, even to make up war crime stories in the chief editors back office for a quick buck or two. Look what those stories alone have caused.
Why go through all that focused one sided political hacking in a "Science report"?
Funny how the fastest polluter growing country in the world gets blessings from Kyoto?
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=3850
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../14/2003215052
http://science.news.designerz.com/ch...ion-grows.html
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa.../kb_china.html
http://www.climateark.org/articles/r...p?linkid=37276
I wonder if Kofi Annan and his kids might be interested in collecting the world pollution tax for the UN? Now there's an honest bunch. Speaking of the UN, often times it seems like the implimentation of a world tax is the main goal of all this. Kyoto is called "Just a start", right?
I'm all for clear water to drink, a safe place to be and clean air to breathe but man-caused global warming is only a disputed theory, as much as half of the "leading scientists" disagree with this notion, not the bumbling>25% mentioned by the other side.
Ok, I'm done.

 

Granted, the New Yorker article includes some political argument, but it is not a one-sided slam of US environmental policy. The great majority of the 50 pages focuses on the researchers and the research methods and models of those testing the hypothesis of human contributions to global warming. It’s worth reading to learn of the "alvedo effect," the climatological analysis of the fall of the Akkadian civilization, and the scientific analyses of polar ice.

What our national environmental policy should be is well worth debating, but the science of global warming is being produced by responsible climatologists, and there does appear to be increasing scientific data supporting the hypothesis of human contribution to global warming. As a non-scientist, I try as best I can to understand their studies, methods, arguments, and I find Kolbert’s essay engaging and informative.

Otherwise, I rely on what? The testimony of the two senators from my state, Imhofe and Coburn? In a speech reported in the Sept. 8, 2004 Daily Oklahoman, Senator Imhofe, citing no studies whatsoever, declared that "global warming was a hoax." He was joined by then, candidate, now Senator Coburn (M.D.) who declared, again, with no evidence, "There's not any hard science, I guarantee you, on global warming."

You may trust these two esteemed public servants if you wish. I find Elizabeth Kolbut’s reportage–and the science she bases it on-- more convincing. From part 3 of her "Climate of Man" series:

In legitimate scientific circles, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. This fact was neatly demonstrated last year by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California at San Diego. Oreskes conducted a study of the more than nine hundred articles on climate change published in refereed journals between 1993 and 2003 and subsequently made available on a leading research database. Of these, she found that seventy-five per cent endorsed the view that anthropogenic emissions were responsible for at least some of the observed warming of the past fifty years. The remaining twenty-five per cent, which dealt with questions of methodology or climate history, took no position on current conditions. Not a single article disputed the premise that anthropogenic warming is under way.

 

IMHO it is simply a gross mis-statement of fact that as much as half of 'leading scientists' diasgree with the notion of anthropogenic warming. Go to any international conference on the subject, or read any report that was prepared by a panel that was not front-loaded by the current administration, and you will find over 70% of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic warming. The debate is akin to that about evolution, in that both are theories, and some people misunderstand the term theory.
About "painting America in such a reckless way.."
yes, the US is the largest polluter globally, and yes, there are others that pollute by substantial amounts. Yes, the US has the highest GDP, but even in terms of per capita pollution values or when corrected for per capita GDP, other countries show that things can be done much better"
Per capita, the US is still the worst green house gas nations, see figure at end of post (sorry about the fact that the figure is based on 1997 data, but it will still illustrate the point). Then consider Switzerland. Being as small as it is, Switzerland is not included on the figure, in 1997 it produced 1.52 metric tons CO2 per inhabitant, about where France is in he figure. Yet Switzerland is arguably the most affluent nation on the planet with the highest standard of living (e.g. GDP per capita, and other ways of describing affluence), which shows that it is possible to maintain a very high standard of living above that of the US, and still contribute less than 1/3 to green house gas production per inhabitant than the US.
IMHO the US is reckless, not just because it has the highest per capita greenhous gas production values, but also because silly arguments are used for maintaining such levels (gotta stay rich...), but mostly because the US is amongst the technologically most advanced nations, and is so eager to show it's leadership on so many international fronts. Well, the one area where the US could and shoudl truly shine with leadership is in addressing global climate change, and here is where the lack of action is so reckless, in my view.
I know this is my very personal opinion, and that many will beg to differ, yet I am convinced that over the course of the next few decases, this will come to be known as one of the biggest debacles, and one of the biggest failures, of the US.
Here's the figure:

 

MGBGT, nice post, and very informative graph.

I was also surprised to see Hot_Georgia's statement that 50% of leading scientists dispute anthropogenic global warming. A 5 minute search of Google is enough to show that is complete bunk.

The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) and AAAS (American Academy for the Advancement of Science) are the two most prestigious and leading scientific organizations in the US. Both have published concensus statements that leave no doubt regarding the serious nature of anthropogenic global warming, and the need to act now. The IPCC is the leading international scientific statement on global warming, and their concensus statement is similar.

We may listen to different people. I prefer expert opinion: PhD's who are researchers in this field, and publish actively in the leading peer reviewed journals. Propaganda pieces does not cut it. The opinion of politicians, the clergy, or the oil lobby is mixing ideology and special interest into what is a pure scientific question that has been answered. What to do about the problem is a social question, and everybody's opionion -- no matter how shortsighted or stupid -- should be heard.

 

I found this today on CNN.com, this is an interesting Idea to "repent" for your cars emissions. One never knows if he is getting scammed or not... But I signed up to help make a statement about Global Warming. Worst case scenario I bought a $30.00 sticker and a little conversation with the next person who gets in my car...

The idea is to buy pollution credits off the open market from power plants and make them find more environmentally sound ways to produce energy as well as subsidies existing renewable energy so that it makes it to our homes.

http://www.terrapass.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/funonw...pay/index.html

 

I applaud your willingness to put your money where your heart is.

I would respectfully suggest, however, that you will gain more from your money by directly investing in NEW clean power generation. Right now, unfortunately, these schemes are more scam than progress, because they are selling clean energy that is *already* on the grid.

It is not easy in the US to directly invest, due to barriers to entry present at the local, state, and national levels for grass roots development. Two possibilities I am looking into are buying stock in FPL (the Florida energy utility), and international wind farms. FPL is by and away the most active energy company in bringing new clean energy to the US grid, and they have a proactive program to clean up their coal plants. International wind farms are not as attractive as local, but global warming is a global problem.

 

Hi EricGo:

___I do not know about FPL and their total GHG from generating assets but the following has paid off my cars, my home, and my vacations over the last 3 years and it just happened to hit another all-time high today … Most of its generating assets do not produce any GHG’s in fact

EXC Common

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

This energy company, as far as I can tell, has not built any wind farms. They do buy 175 MW of wind energy, as part of their 8000 MW portfolio. Their clean energy is a combination of (?) long-standing hydro and nuke.

I'm glad you are profiting from your stocks, but this company is not in the same game as FPL, if the intent is to have your investments promote future green energy development, with the possible exception of additonal nuke facilities depending where you stand on that question.

 

Hi EricGo:

___In terms of GHG emissions per capita, per sq. mi., or per anything else, it is the lowest GHG producer in the country. In my state, this company approaches Framatome in terms of power produced via nuclear generation with minimal GHG emissions per the above. Finally, it is the company I work for

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net